Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF
THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - NOEL T. ADALLOM, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No.
182522 Present:
Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR., and PERLAS-BERNABE,* JJ. Promulgated: March 7, 2012 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, J.:
This
is a review on appeal of the Decision[1]
dated
Accused-appellant was originally
charged with two (2) counts of murder and one (1) count of attempted murder under
the following Informations:
Criminal Case No. Q-01-105875
That on or about the 28th day of October 2001, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating with two other persons whose true names and other personal circumstances have not as yet been ascertained and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, qualified with evident premeditation and treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, assault, attack and employ personal violence upon the person of DANILO VILLAREAL y ESPIRAS by then and there shooting him with the use of a firearm hitting him on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal gunshot wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Danilo Villareal y Espiras.[3]
Criminal Case No. Q-01-105876
That on or about the 28th day of October 2001, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating with two other persons whose true names and other personal circumstances have not as yet been ascertained and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, qualified with evident premeditation and treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, assault, attack and employ personal violence upon the person of ROMMEL HINA by then and there shooting him with the use of a firearm hitting the latter on the head, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal gunshot wound which was the direct and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Rommel Hina.[4]
Criminal Case No. Q-01-105877
That on or about the 28th day of October [2001], in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating with two other persons whose true names and identities have not as yet been ascertained and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, qualified with evident premeditation, treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commence the commission of the crime of murder directly by overt acts, by then and there shooting one BABELITO E. VILLAREAL with the use of a firearm but said accused were not able to perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of murder by reason of some cause or accident other than their own spontaneous desistance, that is complainant was able to ran away, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party.[5]
When arraigned on January 15, 2002,
accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.[6]
At the pre-trial conference on
January 29, 2002, the parties stipulated only as to the deaths of Danilo
Villareal (Danilo) and Rommel Hina (Rommel).[7]
Thereafter, trial ensued.
The prosecution presented four
witnesses, namely: Babelito Villareal (Babelito),[8] Danilos
brother who survived the shooting; Janita Villareal (Janita),[9] Danilos
wife; Dr. Joselito Rodrigo (Joselito),[10] the
Chief Medico Legal of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory who
examined Danilos cadaver; and Diorito Coronas, Jr. (Diorito),[11] who
was present at the time and place of the shooting.
Below are the testimonies of Babelito
and Diorito as summarized by the RTC:
Prosecution
witness Babelito Villareal, a
construction worker and residing at 120 Senatorial Road, Barangay Batasan
Hills, Quezon City, testified that he was with his brother, Danilo, and Rommel
Hina, a neighbor, towards midnight of October 27, 2001 in front of the store of
his sister, Nanieta. His house was just
across the street. They were drinking
beer but ran out of it. Danilo asked
Rommel Hina to buy cigarettes from a nearby store because their sisters store
was already closed. When Hina returned,
they stayed in the same place. Babelito
had his back against the wall fronting the road while he was facing his
brothers back. Hina was on his right
side. Soon a tricycle with its lights
out and its engine turned off, arrived.
It was still moving because the road was on a downward slope. He saw Noel Adallom alight from the sidecar. Adallom was with Johnwayne Lindawan and a
tricycle driver. After Adallom alighted,
he fired his carbine. There was a
successive burst of gunfire and Adallom was saying, Ano? Ano? His brother went down and Rommel Hina was
moaning. The tricycle came from his left
side. When Adallom fired his gun, Danilo
turned his head and tried to run but he was hit at the back. He himself, when he saw the gunfire just
closed his eyes and leaned against the wall and turned his head to the right
and moved his leg downward just waiting for what would happen next. When his brother and Rommel fell, the firing
stopped and when he turned his head, he noticed that Adallom upon seeing him
alive, again fired successive shots and then he heard, tak-tak. The gun must have
jammed then he heard another burst of gunfire, rat-tat-tat. He sought
cover beside a vehicle and ran. He showed
some pictures and pointed to the place he testified on (see Exhibit A). There were bullet marks shown in the pictures
(Exhibit B). He ran to an alley and then
he went back to
On
cross examination, among others, he said that Adalloms house is just near the eskinita. The following day when he saw Adallom
sporting a new haircut, he tried to keep track of his movements. He did that for several days. He was shown a sketch marked as Exhibit D for
the prosecution and said, the house of his sister was along
Diorito Coronas, Jr., a billiard player
by profession, usually played at the billiard hall near the house of Noel
Adallom in
On cross examination, Coronas identified the owner of the videoke bar as Anderson Tuguinay.[12]
Janita, when she took the witness
stand, detailed the expenses incurred for the funeral and burial of her
husband, Danilo.
Dr. Joselito reported that as a
result of his autopsy examination of Danilos body, he had determined that Danilo
died from hemorrhagic shock due to multiple gunshot wounds. There were six gunshot wounds in Danilos
trunk and lower extremities. All points
of entry were at Danilos back. There
were five exit wounds at the front portion of Danilos body while one slug was
recovered in Danilos liver. Dr. Joselito
submitted the recovered slug for ballistic examination. Dr. Joselito further elaborated on his
findings during his cross-examination:
On
cross examination, among others, he stated that the autopsy was conducted on
The defense presented the testimonies
of accused-appellant[14] himself;
Mila Adallom (Mila),[15] accused-appellants
wife; Aida Marquez (Aida);[16] Sgt.
Anderson Tuguinay (Anderson);[17] Sgt.
Agustin Adallom (Agustin);[18]
Editha Gutierrez (Editha);[19] and
Elizabeth Buyayo (
Accused-appellant interposed the
defenses of denial and alibi, to wit:
Noel Adallom, a machine operator,
testified that on
On
cross examination, Noel Adallom said that he works as a machine operator since
1988. He recalled that
Mila confirmed on the witness stand that
her husband, accused-appellant, went out to play billiards at around 11:30 p.m.
on
Aida, an ambulant vendor, testified
that in the early morning of
Sgt. Anderson, who resided within the
vicinity of the shooting incident, recollected that at around past
Sgt. Agustin, who likewise resided
within the vicinity of the shooting incident, narrated that he was awakened by
a burst of gunfire in the early morning of October 28, 2001, at around 12:45
a.m. He then heard someone shouting wag sarge, wag sarge! Then he heard another burst of gunfire. He went out of his house and proceeded to
Editha is another ambulant vendor who
recalled that at around
The last witness for the defense was Elizabeth,
accused-appellants distant relative, and the neighbor and close friend of Janita,
Danilos wife.
The prosecution presented on rebuttal
Nanieta Lindawan (Nanieta), who gave the following account of the events that
transpired in the early morning of October 28, 2001:
Testifying
on rebuttal, Nanieta Lindawan denied
having met, seen or talk[ed] with Adallom, a townmate of her husband, in the
early morning of
On
cross-examination, among others, she stated that the incident happened right in
front of her house. She was at home with
her sisters and they were sleeping when she heard successive gunfire. She peeped out of the window and she saw two
persons lying face down, Danilo and [Rommel].
She was able to recognize her brother because he was facing the
window. She went out of the house
minutes after the last gunshot. She
called for her siblings. Except for the
neighbor of her Ate [Janita], none of their neighbors came out because they
were afraid. Her brother Babelito was
also there and he told her that he was almost hit. Danilo was already brought to the hospital
before the police arrived in unmarked vehicles.
Although Sgt. Tuguinay owns a delivery van, they did not try to borrow
it to bring Danilo to the hospital because Tuguinay does not lend his vehicle
to anyone. She denied having borrowed
facilities, like chairs and tables, from her best friend Elizabeth, who owns a
school.
The documentary exhibits for the
prosecution consisting of Babelitos sworn statement, in a question and
answer form, executed before PO3 Leo Tabuena on November 21, 2001; sketch and
photographs of the location of the shooting incident; Danilos death
certificate; the autopsy report on Danilos body; receipts and list of funeral
and burial expenses incurred by Danilos heirs; and the ballistics report which
stated that the bullet recovered at the scene came from a .30 caliber firearm
were all admitted by the RTC in its Order[23]
dated September 2, 2002.
The defense submitted its own documentary
exhibits, specifically, photographs of several bullet holes at the store where Danilo,
Rommel, and Babelito were shot to show the trajectory of the bullets; sketch of
the location of the shooting incident; accused-appellants daily time records
from his work for the months of October and November 2001; and Janitas
letter-complaint dated November 19, 2001 against accused-appellant. All these exhibits were admitted by the RTC
in its Order[24] dated
On December 15, 2003, the RTC
rendered its Decision giving more credence to the positive testimonies of
prosecution witnesses Babelito and Diorito and finding implausible accused-appellants
defenses of denial and alibi. The RTC pronounced
accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of murder of
Danilo in Criminal Case No. Q-01-105875 and attempted murder of Babelito in
Criminal Case No. Q-01-105877; but dismissed the charge against
accused-appellant for the murder of Rommel in Criminal Case No. Q-01-105876 because
of insufficiency of evidence. The
dispositive portion of the RTC judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused NOEL ADALLOM guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder described and penalized under Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article 63 thereof, and there being no other aggravating circumstance attending the commission of the crime, he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim, Danilo Villareal, as follows:
1. P50,000.00
as civil indemnity;
2. P50,000.00
as moral damages;
3. P57,084.80
as actual damages; and
4. To pay the costs.
With respect to Crim. Case No. Q-01-105817 for the attempted murder of Babelito Villareal after applying the indeterminate sentence law, the court hereby sentences accused to suffer imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years of prision mayor.
For insufficiency of evidence, Criminal Case No. Q-01-105876 is hereby dismissed.[25]
Accused-appellant appealed the foregoing
RTC judgment before the Court of Appeals.
Accused-appellant filed his Brief[26]
on
In its Decision dated July 31, 2007,
the Court of Appeals agreed with the factual findings of the RTC and ruled thus:
Verily, we reiterate the jurisprudential doctrine that great weight is accorded to the factual findings of the trial court particularly on the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses; this can only be discarded or disturbed when it appears in the record that the trial court overlooked, ignored or disregarded some fact or circumstance of weight or significance which if considered would have altered the result. In the course of our review, the records disclose, that the trial court has considered all the evidences of both parties and, thus, has ruled correctly. Trial courts have the opportunity to see witnesses as they testify in court, an opportunity not readily available to appellate courts.
Thus, we find no reason to depart from the above ruling. We have examined the records and we confirm the trial courts findings that the testimonies of the witnesses are more trustworthy than the testimonies of the defense witnesses, particularly the appellants.
With the application of prevailing laws and jurisprudence to the evidence presented, We cannot conclude otherwise but rule for the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED in toto.[28]
Hence, accused-appellant comes before
us on appeal.
In our Resolution[29]
dated
Accused-appellant assails his
conviction for murder and attempted murder on these grounds:
A. The trial court erred in finding the testimony of Babelito Villareal and Diorito Coronas, Jr. credible.[31]
1.) The trial court misapplied the doctrine that the relationship of the witness to the victim does not make the former a biased witness, but rather makes his testimony more credible.[32]
2.) The trial courts findings that Babelito and [Diorito] narrated as they saw the incident in a clear, simple and direct manner; and, that their testimonies jive on material points are seriously belied by the evidence extant on the record.[33]
3.) The trial courts finding that Babelito and [Diorito] could not have been mistaken with the identity of Noel Adallom because he had been a long time resident of the place is highly speculative.[34]
4.) The trial courts finding that the place where the incident occurred was lighted.[35]
5.) The trial courts finding that no motive was shown for the two witnesses to prevaricate and concoct the story to implicate Adallom with the killing is uncalled for.[36]
B. The trial court erred in relying on the weakness of the defense rather on the strength of the prosecutions evidence.[37]
C. The trial court erred in not finding that the evidence on record raise a reasonable doubt that the accused was the assailant.[38]
Plaintiff-appellee counter-argues
that:
I
The testimony of Babelito Villareal, an eye witness and survivor of the assault, established with utmost certainty the identity of appellant as the assailant and gunman.
II
The prosecution established the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
III
Appellants defense of denial is weak and without factual basis.[39]
We sustain the conviction of
accused-appellant for both crimes.
Jurisprudence dictates that when the
credibility of a witness is in issue, the findings of fact of the trial court,
its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the
probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings
are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect. This is more true if such findings were
affirmed by the appellate court, since it is settled that when the trial
courts findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are
generally binding upon this Court.[40]
We find no cogent reason to deviate
from the cited case doctrine.
As aptly appreciated by the RTC, prosecution
witnesses Babelito and Diorito both positively identified accused-appellant as
the person who treacherously shot Danilo and Babelito, and ultimately succeeded
in killing Danilo. Said witnesses gave a
forthright and consistent narration of what they had actually witnessed the
early morning of
Babelito had to relive before the RTC
the traumatic experience of seeing his brother Danilo killed and barely
escaping with his own life:
Q And can you tell us where were the three of you during that time?
A I was in front of my house which is also in front of the store of my sister Nanieta.
x x x x
Q And what were the three of you doing at that time?
A We were seated in front of the store of my sister drinking beer, sir.
x x x x
Q And
you said that you ran out of beer, what happened after you ran out of beer?
A We
stopped drinking and then a tricycle arrived with its lights out and its engine
turned off. It was still moving because
the road was on a downward slope, sir.
x x x x
Q At the time that you noticed the said tricycle, can you tell us what time was that?
A
Q When
you noticed the said tricycle moving downwards because of the sloping road,
what happened next?
A Noel
Adallom alighted from the tricycle. He
got out of the sidecar.
Q By the way, were you able to count how many persons were inside the tricycle?
A There were three of them: the tricycle driver, Noel Adallom and John Win Lindawan.
Q You said Noel Adallom was inside the tricycle, at the time, where was he seated in the tricycle?
A Inside the tricycle, sir.
Q Now,
what happened next when Noel Adallom alighted?
A He
fired his gun, sir.
Q From the place wherein Noel Adallom alighted immediately thereafter fired his gun, how far was your group from him?
A About 4 meters, sir.
Q Now, you said Mr. Adallom alighted and fired his gun, can you remember what kind of firearm he used at the time?
A Carbine.
Q Was it a long or short firearm?
A Long firearm, sir.
Q And
when he alighted and fired his gun, what happened to your group, if any?
A There
were successive shots and I just saw gunbursts and he was saying, Ano? Ano?
while he was firing successively at my brother and Rommel Hina who was already
moaning.
Q Can you tell us your relative positions at the time Mr. Adallom fired his gun?
A I was at the back by the wall fronting the road and my brothers back was fronting the street facing me.
Q How about Mr. Hina, where was he positioned?
A On my right side, sir.
Q Can you tell us from what direction the said tricycle came from?
A From my left side, sir.
Q So, you are telling us that the tricycle which had no lights and with engines not running just came by the road and 4 meters from you, Mr. Adallom alighted and fired his gun?
A Yes, sir.
Q And
what was the relative position of your brother when Noel Adallom fired his gun?
A While
the tricycle was coming down the road, my brother turned his head and tried to
run but he was already hit all at the back by the volley of fire.
Q What
about Rommel Hina, what happened to him?
A He
was also hit.
Q How
about you?
A When
I saw gunfire, I just closed my eyes and leaned against the wall and turned my
head to the right and slowly, I moved my leg downwards and just waited for what
would happen next.
Q And
can you tell us what happened to you after you just left your fate to God?
A When
my brother and Rommel fell, the firing stopped.
I turned my head and I noticed that Noel Adallom looked surprised.
Q When
Noel Adallom looked surprised upon seeing you still alive, what happened next?
A He
again fired a succession of shots and then I heard tak-tak.
Q And
would you know what that sound was that you heard?
A I surmised that the gun must have jammed, sir.
Q What
did you do, if any, when you realized that the gun must have jammed?
A I
thought of standing up and running and I again heard a burst of gunfire,
rat-tat-tat.
Q What
happened when you heard another round of gunfire?
A I sought cover behind a vehicle and I ran towards the corner to escape.[41] (Emphases supplied.)
Diorito corroborated Babelitos testimony
when he recounted before the RTC the following:
Q Now, you said that you were at the said
videoke bar at around
A When I heard a gunfire, I immediately proceeded near the vehicle to look on what is happening.
Q Now, you said that you heard a gunfire; when you heard that gunfire, who were with you during that time?
A I was alone.
Q And you said that after hearing a gunfire you went out near a vehicle that was parked; can you tell us where is that vehicle that was parked where you went for cover?
A The vehicle is right in front of the videoke bar where we usually hang out and it so happened that the vehicle is also owned by the owner of that videoke bar.
x x x x
Q You said you went to that vehicle which was parked, what else did you do after going near the vehicle?
A I was looking who shot who.
Q And what did you see if any?
A I saw three persons who fell (bumulagta noong pinagbabaril).
Q Now,
you said that you saw three men who just fell when shots were fired upon, [is]
any of those three men present in todays courtroom whom you said that fell
down, can you identify them?
A The
two persons are already dead but the other, I got surprised when he immediately
ran.
Q That
person that stood up, can you identify him?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Can
you kindly tell us his name if you know it?
A Samboy,
sir.
Q Is
he present in todays courtroom? Can you kindly stand up and point to us that
person? Kindly tap the shoulder of that person.
A (Witness tapping the shoulder of a man who when asked answered that his name is Babelito Villareal.)
Q Aside from seeing those three men whom you said fell down, what else did you see if any?
A I saw one person firing shots and the other one is facing in front of the house of Samboy and the other person was manning the tricycle.
Q So, all in all, there were three persons that you saw other than those three other persons whom you said fell down, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q You said that you saw one of those three persons firing a gun, can you kindly describe to us that gun that was used by the said person?
A The size of the gun that he was using was like this (witness demonstrating), less than two feet. But I dont know what kind.
Q That
person whom you saw carrying a firearm and was shooting that men, if that
person is present in todays courtroom, can you identify him?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Can
you kindly step down again and tap the shoulder of that person whom you saw?
A (Witness tapping the shoulder of a person who gave his name as Noel Adallom)
Q Now, when this shooting incident took place, can you kindly tell us how far were this group of men whom you said were shot from the place where you were hiding or covering near the vehicle?
A Same distance more or less eight meters.
Q How about the gunman who was shooting these three men, how far were you from him?
A It is farther by half meter.
Q You said that you saw this incident that took place, can you kindly tell us what was the lighting condition during that time that this incident happened?
A The place where the incident happened, it was well-lighted, however, from where I stand, the place was not lighted. The light came only from the videoke bar.
x x x x
Q You said that after you saw Mr. Adallom shot these three men, what else did you see if any?
A When
he started firing at these three men, right after, I saw one person immediately
stood up and ran away and right after that, Noel Adallom kept on firing at the
guy who was running.
Q When
you said that guy stood up you were referring to Babelito Villareal, that one
that you just pointed prior to the accused?
A Yes,
sir.
Q And what happened next after Mr. Adallom was not able to hit Mr. Babelito Villareal?
A I noticed a yellow tricycle without plate number which immediately started its engine and moved downward towards my direction and the other two guys went on the other direction going upward.
Q How about you, what did you do next after seeing that incident?
A I immediately approached the two guys who were lying down.
Q And what did you see if any after that?
A I still heard one guy in the person of Rommel who was still moaning.
Q After hearing Rommel still moaning, what did you do, if any?
A I was a bit apprehensive because maybe somebody will see me and my family will be involved so I immediately ran away from the scene.
Q Where did you go after running away?
A I immediately went to my house.[42] (Emphases supplied.)
Accused-appellants attacks on the
credibility of Babelito and Diorito are unconvincing, each having already been
soundly rejected by the Court of Appeals, thus:
The accused-appellant is not successful in proving the incredibility and improbability of the testimonies of the [prosecutions] two eye witnesses, hence, his arguments on the slight difference in the location and nature of gunshot wounds as opposed to the position of the assailant as testified by the witness are not sufficient to overturn the eyewitness accounts of Diorito and Babelito. The positive identification of the witnesses is more than enough to prove the accused-appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Accused-appellant argues that the delay in charging him raises serious doubts on Babelitos testimony. Well settled is the rule that Delay in making criminal accusations will not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained. It has been established that the delay in filing a criminal complaint is attributed to his confusion and desire to consult his sister-in-law who is the wife of deceased Danilo. He also testified that he did not file a complaint immediately, because he did not want to disturb the wake of his brother. Such explanation is acceptable. True enough, he filed a complaint with the barangay officials and asked for their assistance in bringing accused-appellant to Station 6 after the funeral of his brother.
Accused-appellant tried to attack the reliability of Babelitos testimony by insisting that the story told by Babelito does not jive with the story told by the physical evidence consisting of the wounds sustained by the body of Danilo. We are not convinced. Accused-appellant is capitalizing on the fact that the location and nature of the gunshot wounds sustained by deceased Danilo is anteriorwards, lateralwards and going to the right. Simply stated, the direction of the wounds are slightly going upwards to the right, which according to the accused-appellant is impossible to be sustained by the deceased, because (as told by Babelito) he is standing up when he shot deceased Danilo, who is seated on the street. Such argument lacks merit. As explained by Dr. Rodrigo in his testimony, the body of Danilo could have moved and slumped forward when he was being hit by bullets in rapid succession and the position of his body has changed. When the bullets hit the body of the deceased, the body was already on the ground face down and the natural trajectory of bullets is upward, toward the head of the deceased. It is established that accused-appellant Noel was shooting while he was standing and the deceased was already on the ground. So when you try to examine the body and let it stand up, it would naturally create an impression that the bullets direction is upward. The explanation is so simple, the body received the bullets while it is slumped, with face forward on the ground, and accused-appellant Noel was shooting while he was standing up. Such explanation is corroborated by Babelitos account that Danilo tried to turn his shoulders to face his left side, before he fell furthermore, such testimony is also corroborated by the testimony of Nanette which claimed that Danilo fell at the spot marked as Exhibit 2-C as told by Babelito.[43] (Emphasis supplied and citations omitted.)
In contrast, accused-appellant
proffered the defenses of denial and alibi, which are the weakest of defenses
in criminal cases. The well-established rule is that denial and alibi are
self-serving negative evidence; they cannot prevail over the spontaneous,
positive, and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who pointed to
and identified the accused-appellant as the malefactor. Indeed, alibi is easy to concoct and
difficult to disprove.[44]
Although accused-appellant presented
other witnesses to supposedly corroborate his alibi, we could not ascribe much
probative weight to said witnesses testimonies. None of said witnesses actually saw the
shooting, most only heard the gunshots and arrived at the scene after the
shooting took place and, thus, had no personal knowledge of the said incident. Except for Aida, no other witness for the
defense was physically with accused-appellant at the exact time of the
shooting. And even Aidas testimony is
unreliable given the observation of the RTC that it is in conflict with that of
accused-appellant. Accused-appellant
claimed that he first went to the billiard hall owned by Ilustre where he
played with a certain Zaldy and then
he transferred to Retotas billiard hall where he was playing with Danilo and Dominador Baldaba when he
heard the gunshots. Yet, Aida attested that
she was watching accused-appellant playing billiards with a certain Zaldy when she heard the gunshots.
In sum, the prosecution has proven
beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant for the murder of Danilo
in Criminal Case No. Q-01-105875 and attempted murder of Babelito in Criminal
Case No. Q-01-105877.
The penalty prescribed by law for the
crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to
death.[45] With the repeal of the death penalty law, the
only penalty prescribed by law for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua. The
Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply, inter
alia, to persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life
imprisonment, including reclusion
perpetua. Hence, accused-appellant
has been properly sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the murder of Danilo in Criminal Case No.
Q-01-105875.
However, we find it necessary to
modify the award of damages to Danilos heirs in Criminal Case No.
Q-01-105875. Consistent with prevailing
case law,[46] accused-appellant
must pay Danilos heirs the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00
as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, in addition to
the sum of P57,084.80 as actual damages.
For the crime of attempted murder, the
penalty shall be prision mayor, since
Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code states that a penalty lower by two degrees
than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon
the principals in an attempt to commit a felony. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
maximum of the sentence shall be that which could be properly imposed in view
of the attending circumstances, and the minimum shall be within the range of
the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. Absent any mitigating or aggravating
circumstance in this case, the maximum of the sentence should be within the range
of prision mayor in its medium term,
which has a duration of eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years; and
that the minimum should be within the range of prision correccional, which has a duration of six (6) months and
one (1) day to six (6) years. Hence, we
sentence accused-appellant to suffer imprisonment from six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight
(8) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor, as maximum, for the attempted murder of Babelito in Criminal Case
No. Q-01-105877.
We further order accused-appellant to
pay Babelito the amounts of P25,000.00 as civil indemnity, P10,000.00
as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages in Criminal Case
No. Q-01-105877.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal of
accused-appellant Noel T. Adallom is DENIED
for lack of merit. The Decision dated
1)
For the murder of Danilo Villareal in
Criminal Case No. Q-01-105875, Noel T. Adallom is SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ORDERED
to pay the heirs of Danilo Villareal the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary
damages, and P57,084.80 as actual damages; and
2) For the attempted murder of Babelito
Villareal in Criminal Case No. Q-01-105877, Noel T. Adallom is SENTENCED to suffer imprisonment from
six (6) years of prision correccional,
as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, and ORDERED
to pay Babelito Villareal the amounts of P25,000.00 as civil indemnity, P10,000.00
as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
LUCAS P.
BERSAMIN Associate Justice
|
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ESTELA M.
PERLAS-BERNABE Associate Justice |
|
* Per Special Order No. 1207 dated February 23, 2012.
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-13; penned by Associate Justice Enrico A. Lanzanas with Associate Justices Remedios Salazar-Fernando and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente, concurring.
[2] Records, pp. 198-228; penned by Judge Monina A. Zenarosa.
[3] Id. at 2.
[4] Id. at 8.
[5] Id.
at 14.
[6]
[7]
[8] TSN, February 18, 2002 and March
4, 2002.
[9] TSN,
[10] TSN,
[11] TSN,
[12] Records,
pp. 200-204.
[13] Id.
at 206-207.
[14] TSN,
February 10, 2003, March 3, 2003, March 10, 2003 and April 14, 2003.
[15] TSN,
[16] TSN,
[17] TSN,
[18] TSN,
[19] TSN,
[20] TSN,
[21] Records,
pp. 213-217.
[22] Id. at 217-218.
[23]
[24]
[25] Id.
at 227-228.
[26] CA
rollo, pp. 112-147.
[27]
[28] Rollo, pp. 11-12.
[29] Id.
at 19-20.
[30]
[31] CA rollo, p. 125.
[32] Id. at 127.
[33] Id.
[34] Id. at 139.
[35] Id.
[36] Id. at 140.
[37] Id. at 141.
[38] Id.
at 143.
[39] Id.
at 205.
[40] Decasa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 172184,
[41] TSN,
[42] TSN,
[43] Rollo,
pp. 9-11.
[44] People v. Bulan, 498 Phil. 586, 612 (2005).
[45] Revised Penal Code, Article 248.
[46] People v. Orias and Elarcosa, G.R. No.
186539, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 417, 438.